Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 I find Darwins theory of evolution as bad science because it lacks the proof of evidence actually seen. I can totally accept small varriations within kinds of animals such as the size and shape of beetles, finches beaks, etc. What I see as a complete lack of proof is the theory of going from those seen evidences to the idea that those small changes were the cause of all life branching out from one first life-form on earth. That theory lacks solid evidence. Ok, then provide an alternative theory. And explain what you mean by 'kinds of animals'.
danielwoods Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 That's because in trying to show a "kind-to-different kind" of evolution, you simply can't "observe" it. It would take too long. And then in trying to show what you can "observe" it, it gets dismissed as being just evolution "of the same kind." It's an impossible request. And in regards to "major organisms" we aren't talking about moving from dogs-to-cats or chimp-to-human ("jumping branches" in the evolutionary tree). We're talking about a common ancestor. So you're asking about "observing" a common ancestor evolving to both a dog and a cat. That takes A LONG time, and we didn't have GoPro's set up in the prairie to produce a timelapse of it to show it. So we're stuck with looking at "dots". And we have a lot of those dots along those evolutionary branches. But that's obviously not good enough for people that want to see the "lines", who want to "observe" something evolving from one "kind" to another. So... we go to what we can observe evolving. We look and fruitfries and such and watch them evolving. We get to see that initial branch off point from a common ancestor! We observe a line being drawn! But that also isn't good enough, because it's just showing evolution "within a kind" of fruitfly. It's not showing something as great as going from "dog to cat". But... if you went back to the common ancestor between a dog and a cat, you'd get back to a common ancestor that doesn't look like either a dog or a cat. And if we "observed" the mutation that started the branch off that would eventually lead one branch to dog and the other branch to cat, you wouldn't accept it as evidence... because that evolutionary step would simply be evolution of the same "kind" of that common ancestor -- just like the evidences show from the fruitflies. There's no satisfying your request. This conversation happens over and over. Back to the connect-the-dots anaogy. We show you dots and you want to "observe" a line being drawn. We show you a line you can observe and you want it to be a longer line between further away dots. Well... that's just not possible to "observe", but we can show you a long string of dots along that line you want. But that's not good enough. How do you propose we can "observe" an evolution from one "kind" to another? How many generations does it take to go from a common ancestor to a changed organism?
Freedom Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 How many generations does it take to go from a common ancestor to a changed organism?A new organism arises when they are no longer compatible for reproduction. We have only just recently started tracking the genetic traits in animals so I suspect that it is rather difficult to answer this at this point.
ERayR Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 A new organism arises when they are no longer compatible for reproduction. We have only just recently started tracking the genetic traits in animals so I suspect that it is rather difficult to answer this at this point. By recently how long are you talking about?
ERayR Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 There are no dots to connect because they are not related. It is like trying to connect the dots between the theory of relativity and the doctrine of baptism. IMNSHO they are related. If man evolved from common descent then there could have been no fall. Evolution claims a slow climb from the primordial oceans. A fall is a decline from some higher position. Evolution of man from common decent is the opposite, if it is true then there was no fall. If there was no fall there is no need of an atonement. If there was no atonement then all the rest is just a bis hoax.
Rivers Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 IMNSHO they are related. If man evolved from common descent then there could have been no fall. Evolution claims a slow climb from the primordial oceans. A fall is a decline from some higher position. Evolution of man from common decent is the opposite, if it is true then there was no fall. If there was no fall there is no need of an atonement. If there was no atonement then all the rest is just a bis hoax. IMO a literal interpretation of Adam's fall is not necessary for the need for the atonement. The purpose of the atonement is to save us from physical and spiritual death. A historical Adam and Eve story isn't required for the existence of spiritual and physical death.
ERayR Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 IMO a literal interpretation of Adam's fall is not necessary for the need for the atonement. The purpose of the atonement is to save us from physical and spiritual death. A historical Adam and Eve story isn't required for the existence of spiritual and physical death. Of which, at least the spiritual death was caused by the fall. Sounds literal to me.
Rivers Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Of which, at least the spiritual death was caused by the fall. Sounds literal to me.Spiritual death is caused by sin. We all personally fall.
ERayR Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Spiritual death is caused by sin. We all personally fall. Spiritual death was caused by the fall from the presence of God caused by the sin of Adam and Eve. Their sin earned them a trip out of the Garden where they were out of the presence of God (spiritual death) and acquired the ability to partake of physical death. IMO it was very literal. Edited September 1, 2013 by ERayR
Rob Osborn Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Ok, then provide an alternative theory. And explain what you mean by 'kinds of animals'.First off you have the major issues to overcome like how complex biologic systems are in living organisms. All evidence we have shows that the mechanisms and information systems to propagate life has always existed at a highly intelligent level since life first arrived on this planet. We cannot look at mere fossils and make guesses as to if thete biologic makeup was complex or not but we can assume nased on simple life-forms alive today that the life coding mechanisms in their DNA is no different than more complex life-forms. Thus inferred logic tells us that we have this enigma of highly organized intelligent processes even in what we think is rather simple.Many studies and experiments have firmly established the law of biogenesis. No doubt this creates the ultimate quest to want to find a singular event that could of started it all. The problem of the evolutionary tree put forth by evolutionary theory is that tracing it all back to a non-intelligent and non-life form is theoretically impossible. Highly organized lab experiments by highly intelligent scientists fail time and again to break this law of biogenesis. All evidence we have points rather clearly that intelligent systems can only arise from intelligent processes and intelligent systems that precede it. This is where the theory of Intelligent Design has merit and comes into play. ID does not try to find the first intelligent process or even who or what the intelligent source is. Rather, ID sets out theory to uphold and further examine why laws such as biogenesis work and how intelligence is sustained in living things.It ultimately comes down to this one fundamental question- Is Darwinian theory capable of answering how intelligence first arose on this planet? I personally don't believe Darwinian evolution van explain this when thete is no viable or testable model showing how life can arise from non-intelligent processes. The evidence shows just the opposite.
Calm Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) IMNSHO they are related. If man evolved from common descent then there could have been no fall. Evolution claims a slow climb from the primordial oceans. A fall is a decline from some higher position. Evolution of man from common decent is the opposite, if it is true then there was no fall. If there was no fall there is no need of an atonement. If there was no atonement then all the rest is just a bis hoax.But one is a physical and intellectual progression. The Fall is a spiritual decline, a removal from the Presence of God, a breaking of the covenant made with God so the New Covenant must be established. If Adam was the first man to exist in a covenantal relationship with God, was the mortal stand in for those who already abided in the Covenant through their acceptance of the Plan in the Preexistence...if Adam and Eve were the test pilots so to speak or the archetypes, whose first steps are mirrored by all future Adam and Eves as we come to make complete our earlier choice of knowledge of right and wrong by acting on it....well, then there is no problem in my view for Adam and Eve to been able to appear on the scene at that time to move the Eternal Covenant onto a mortal stage though the actions of preparing the world and all that is in it through evolution. Evolution dressed the stage, when it was time for the major actors to appear at the beginning of the second Act (first act being Creation), Adam and Eve in all their glory came to the Garden, walked with God, made their choice and at the end of Act II, exit stage right, the Fall being now complete and the next act "Life in the Lone and Dreary Word" was to begin. No matter what happened prior to the Fall, you only need three things to have a Fall, a height from which to fall from (and how did they get there to begin with...perhaps in part through evolution) and a place to fall to....prepared for them by the Lord, possibly through evolution....and a actor to take that stumble or two in this case, acting for all of humanity as our ultimate Parents, the Fall determining what life they were then able to give to us, humanity, ultimately all of their children whether by blood or by adoption into the covenant (which may have include men who were not in Eden but came to know God later through Adam's teaching and who desired to become one of God's covenantal people. One can look at the purpose of the Fall or the mechanics of it as the primary focus. If the mechanics, I think one will tend to view it as more literal and limiting, but if one looks at the purpose of the Fall and how this could be applied in a much wider form than just two individuals....well, it opens up a lot of possibilities....none of which defeat or alter God's plan in any way because they had to become part of the covenant people to participate in the story being told by the Bible...nor does it exclude all others if "flesh" is defined as sacred flesh, flesh in the covenant. After all there were animals on the world prior to Adam's appearance, why is he the first flesh and not them? Could it be because of the spiritual relationship he has with the Father, one that animals and possible other humans out there lack? Edited September 1, 2013 by calmoriah
Rob Osborn Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Why some must completely butcher the creation and fall just to make room for evolution. It creates a myriad of problems. If Adam was not the first man then you have a problem of Adam and Eve having parents other than God. Evolution demands that Adams parents are pretty much identical to Adam which makes Adams parents just as human and intelligent as Adam. LDS evolutionists must jump through all kinds of hoops at this point which defy all logic. Then you have the fall to deal with. How does life go from a mortal creation to an imortal one and then fall back to a mortal one? Again, evolutionists must again call upon supernatural forces to make this work but then deny any supernatural influence on the creation itself otherwise they have to admit in intelligent design. Then you have some who admit and believe that a literal Adam and Eve never existed. If that is truly how they believe then it has serious ramifications on the entire scriptures and prophets- might as well just denounce religion altogether! The truth is that Darwinian evolution and the creation are not logically compatible. I have spoken extensively with Steven Peck at BYU and he himself admits he sees no place for Christ acting in the creation of which without his influence no creation would exist. This troubles me- we have professors at church ran schools teaching and promoting ideals that there is no place for the Creator in His divine creation.
thesometimesaint Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 I don't beat my spouse, she is my Queen and I treet her as such. I never laid a finger on any women. (where did that come from anyway??) How are we supposed to get anywhere if we can't even play on a level field? You say you don't believe in evolution but that then you explain that you actually do believe in evolution. Please stop being contradictive. I am thus going to assume from all you have said that you do believe in evolution. As such it is a belief that you have- part of your overall belief system of those things you hold to be true. That is not a yes or no answer. There is no level playing field here. Belief:be·liefbiˈlēf/nounnoun: belief; plural noun: beliefs 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. "his belief in the value of hard work" something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. "contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language" synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion More "it's my belief that age is irrelevant" a religious conviction. "Christian beliefs" synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo "traditional beliefs" 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. "a belief in democratic politics" synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence More "belief in the value of hard work" antonyms: Fact: : a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action 2archaic : performance, doing 3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality A belief in God is fine, and I have nothing against it. That being said my belief in God is that a belief. I can not use science to posit any God. Whether he exists, or not, is not a matter for science. Evolution is a provable scientific fact. I have no need to believe it or not.
thesometimesaint Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Why some must completely butcher the creation and fall just to make room for evolution. It creates a myriad of problems. If Adam was not the first man then you have a problem of Adam and Eve having parents other than God. Evolution demands that Adams parents are pretty much identical to Adam which makes Adams parents just as human and intelligent as Adam. LDS evolutionists must jump through all kinds of hoops at this point which defy all logic. Then you have the fall to deal with. How does life go from a mortal creation to an imortal one and then fall back to a mortal one? Again, evolutionists must again call upon supernatural forces to make this work but then deny any supernatural influence on the creation itself otherwise they have to admit in intelligent design. Then you have some who admit and believe that a literal Adam and Eve never existed. If that is truly how they believe then it has serious ramifications on the entire scriptures and prophets- might as well just denounce religion altogether! The truth is that Darwinian evolution and the creation are not logically compatible. I have spoken extensively with Steven Peck at BYU and he himself admits he sees no place for Christ acting in the creation of which without his influence no creation would exist. This troubles me- we have professors at church ran schools teaching and promoting ideals that there is no place for the Creator in His divine creation.May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."Later he adds:"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."In May 1962, he privately instructs that this view be taught to "the boys and girls in the Seminary System."
Questing Beast Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) I see no problem with included evolution in the creation story. I do see a real big problem ignoring physical evidence that is supportive of a theory, which means you are ignoring science, going "la la la la science is in error because it doesn't follow the Bible", etc. Imho, you must work to include both, or else religion gets shelved. Science teaches "how", religion teaches "why" things exist. We need "why" answered, so religion will always be with us. But it might not be, probably won't be, traditional Abrahamic religion a la the Bible. There are plenty of creative ways to integrate the Bible's creation story and the implied followup of fall and redemption. That is why more people resort to doing so. My own reconciliation says that the Bible is a traditional moral tale collection, including the fall and atonement. But a more conservative approach, that demands a literal fall and redemptive sacrifice by the Messiah, can include evolution without doing violence to the biblical creation story. The "fall" is simply an epoch of degrading existence on earth, preceded by a higher, more glorious, existence. Existing life on the planet can be accounted for in the fossil record, while human beings of the covenant making sort are either brought here at a certain point, or raised by divine intervention (much like the unseen higher intelligence in 2001 A Space Odyssey does) to a higher level of intellect until a spirit child can take possession of the bodies that evolution has caused. The whole process could be on "autopilot" and self sustaining as it evolves into greater complexity. Or the entire ball of wax baby could be overseen by "God" down to the most micro detail, it doesn't matter which. Spirit children get into the mix sooner or later. The Mormon view, if taken literally, says that Adam was not of this world anyway, he came from somewhere else. "The gods" all did, and they made the planet suitable for the kind of life they required, they "organized" it, then inhabited it. Here's a point of distinction between homo sapiens and the rest of animal life on earth: "our kind of thinking" is unique, and it comes on the geologic scene "in an eyeblink of evolutionary time" (Marc Hauser). It is so sudden and so huge compared to any other animal thinking capacity that our imaginative capacity, and resulting creativity (complex tools, musical instruments, religious thought upon the afterlife, etc.) all manifest within less than 100K years, bursting on the scene without development or evolutionary evidence, it's all just suddenly there. There is no "common ancestor" of homo sapiens' thought processes with another species. Comparatively our power to think is like a skyscraper while the next most intelligent animals' thinking powers are like the footprint or foundation of that skyscraper. Hypothesizing that we came from some other world is actually a good approach, and it is supported by our religion.... Edited September 1, 2013 by Questing Beast
Rob Osborn Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 That is not a yes or no answer. There is no level playing field here. Belief:be·liefbiˈlēf/nounnoun: belief; plural noun: beliefs1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. "his belief in the value of hard work" something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. "contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language" synonyms:opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion More "it's my belief that age is irrelevant" a religious conviction. "Christian beliefs" synonyms:ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; Moredoctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo "traditional beliefs"2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. "a belief in democratic politics" synonyms:faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence More "belief in the value of hard work" antonyms: Fact: : a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action 2archaic : performance, doing 3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality A belief in God is fine, and I have nothing against it. That being said my belief in God is that a belief. I can not use science to posit any God. Whether he exists, or not, is not a matter for science. Evolution is a provable scientific fact. I have no need to believe it or not.We shall never get anywhere, hence, the problem.You can call whatever you want in your mind facts or beliefs. But in real life facts are things that have removed all doubt and require no faith. Facts also are exactly verifiable. In law they have to actually differentiate between what actually is a "fact" and what is "conjecture". The criteria is simple- when one can provide evidence that removes all doubt and is exactly verified it becomes fact in a court of law. Applying this to Darwinian evolution, there is no doubt that his "theory" is not factual when it comes to how life may have evolved over millions of years.Now, to address "belief". Belief in something can or cannot be actually factual. For instance- I believe 2+2=4. That is something I believe and it also happens to be a fact. I also believe in a global flood in Noahs day. That too is a belief but yet it lacks the accepted criteria needed to be a fact. This is why we have words like "theory" to desribe various beliefs.I know it must drive you crazy to have your evolutionary theory called a belief but the fact is- that is precisely what it is regardless if it is later found to be fact or fiction. In the end it is still part of your beliefs.
thesometimesaint Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 How many generations does it take to go from a common ancestor to a changed organism? In theory only one. In practice there is no set number.
Rob Osborn Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."Later he adds:"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."In May 1962, he privately instructs that this view be taught to "the boys and girls in the Seminary System."And what exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that just because a prophet can be wrong that thus all prophets are wrong?Ridiculous...
Rob Osborn Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 I see no problem with included evolution in the creation story. I do see a real big problem ignoring physical evidence that is supportive of a theory, which means you are ignoring science, going "la la la la science is in error because it doesn't follow the Bible", etc. Imho, you must work to include both, or else religion gets shelved. Science teaches "how", religion teaches "why" things exist. We need "why" answered, so religion will always be with us. But it might not be, probably won't be, traditional Abrahamic religion a la the Bible. There are plenty of creative ways to integrate the Bible's creation story and the implied followup of fall and redemption. That is why more people resort to doing so. My own reconciliation says that the Bible is a traditional moral tale collection, including the fall and atonement. But a more conservative approach, that demands a literal fall and redemptive sacrifice by the Messiah, can include evolution without doing violence to the biblical creation story. The "fall" is simply an epoch of degrading existence on earth, preceded by a higher, more glorious, existence. Existing life on the planet can be accounted for in the fossil record, while human beings of the covenant making sort are either brought here at a certain point, or raised by divine intervention (much like the unseen higher intelligence in 2001 A Space Odyssey does) to a higher level of intellect until a spirit child can take possession of the bodies that evolution has caused. The whole process could be on "autopilot" and self sustaining as it evolves into greater complexity. Or the entire ball of wax baby could be overseen by "God" down to the most micro detail, it doesn't matter which. Spirit children get into the mix sooner or later. The Mormon view, if taken literally, says that Adam was not of this world anyway, he came from somewhere else. "The gods" all did, and they made the planet suitable for the kind of life they required, they "organized" it, then inhabited it. Here's a point of distinction between homo sapiens and the rest of animal life on earth: "our kind of thinking" is unique, and it comes on the geologic scene "in an eyeblink of evolutionary time" (Marc Hauser). It is so sudden and so huge compared to any other animal thinking capacity that our imaginative capacity, and resulting creativity (complex tools, musical instruments, religious thought upon the afterlife, etc.) all manifest within less than 100K years, bursting on the scene without development or evolutionary evidence, it's all just suddenly there. There is no "common ancestor" of homo sapiens' thought processes with another species. Comparatively our power to think is like a skyscraper while the next most intelligent animals' thinking powers are like the footprint or foundation of that skyscraper. Hypothesizing that we came from some other world is actually a good approach, and it is supported by our religion....Except for the fact that our religion actually believes that Adam was made from the dust of this earth. So, no, Adam did not arive already built from another sphere.
Questing Beast Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Except for the fact that our religion actually believes that Adam was made from the dust of this earth. So, no, Adam did not arive already built from another sphere.I didn't say that he did. His spirit, the thinking part, came from another world, and our religion shows that. Before that happened, evolution brought this planet up to the required "speed". A glorified state was set aside that we call the garden of Eden, and it was from that place/station that Adam and Eve "fell" and went out into the already existing world of already mortal things. It doesn't matter if "Eden" was a specific, limited place, or the whole earth temporarily underwent an "upgrade" when Adam came here. We don't know and we shouldn't care, because either way is permissible to the story's integrity. There is nothing in the geologic record that could possibly detect a "period" of immortality in living things. In fact, if such did occur, the passing time would be invisible, since nothing would be lying down and dying, ergo no "layer" for the entire span of immortality that the earth enjoyed before the "fall".... Edited September 1, 2013 by Questing Beast
thesometimesaint Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Rob: Whether I beleve something is true, or not, does not meet the requirements of science. I must be able to provide sufficient evidence to gain the support of a disinterested third party. I don't "believe" 2+2=4. That is simply a fact of the addition of numerals as represented by numbers. Science isn't a matter for courts of law. Though courts of law may use science. But if you want to go that route you'll still come up short.http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover Again my belief has no bearing on facts. IE; According to the Christian Bible Pi is exactly equal to three. The fact is that it isn't and no amount of belief is going to change that Pi is 3.1415926535... . Evolution is a fact. Time to move on.
thesometimesaint Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 And what exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that just because a prophet can be wrong that thus all prophets are wrong?Ridiculous... I didn't say that. We don't believe Prophets are always wrong. Nor do we believe Prophets are always right. It is rediculous to claim they are either one. Plus we are one of few churches that believe in new revelation that corrects old misunderstandings.
Rob Osborn Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 I didn't say that he did. His spirit, the thinking part, came from another world, and our religion shows that. Before that happened, evolution brought this planet up to the required "speed". A glorified state was set aside that we call the garden of Eden, and it was from that place/station that Adam and Eve "fell" and went out into the already existing world of already mortal things. It doesn't matter if "Eden" was a specific, limited place, or the whole earth temporarily underwent an "upgrade" when Adam came here. We don't know and we shouldn't care, because either way is permissible to the story's integrity. There is nothing in the geologic record that could possibly detect a "period" of immortality in living things. In fact, if such did occur, the passing time would be invisible, since nothing would be lying down and dying, ergo no "layer" for the entire span of immortality that the earth enjoyed before the "fall"....In LDS doctrine, beforw the fall there was no death of the entire creation. This coincides with revekation that this earth will have a 7,000 year temporal existance.
cdowis Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Again my belief has no bearing on facts. IE; According to the Christian Bible Pi is exactly equal to three. The fact is that it isn't and no amount of belief is going to change that Pi is 3.1415926535... . Could you give us that reference, where it says "pi is exactly three", or something to that effect. I prefer to judge for myself.
cdowis Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 This coincides with revekation that this earth will have a 7,000 year temporal existance.Does this include the creation period?
Recommended Posts